Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

The value of cynicism – South Africa’s reaction to the pandemic and our government

06 May 2020 | Story Dr Ina Gouws | Photo Supplied

The President of the Republic of South Africa made another address to the country on Thursday 23 April 2020, indicating that the country will enter a phased approach out of lockdown in the coming months. This announcement was met with positive feedback not only nationally, but internationally. It was clear that the President consulted with many experts and also with opposition parties, which indicated that an ‘all-hands-on-deck’ approach was followed across party lines and varied interests. The plan seemed rational, well thought through, and clear:

Support for lockdown

The government’s lockdown and subsequent restrictions on movement, trade and industry held wide support until now. The argument that people’s lives are most important and that the prevention of the spread of COVID-19 infection must be a priority, was accepted as rational. Truth be told, this strategy was entirely reliant on public trust and cooperation, which the President did have at the start of the lockdown. So, when he announced that the country would enter Level 4 from 1 May 2020, there was a sense of relief that progress was being made and that sacrifices made by all of us (some much more than others), have yielded some positive results.

However, there was also an almost immediate realisation that this approach would have to rely on state machinery, especially on provincial and local levels, which – before the lockdown – was ineffective, to say the least. State capacity had been gutted by widespread corruption, incompetence, and the inability or unwillingness to hold to account those who are guilty of mismanagement and corruption. Add to that the planned deployment of more than 70 000 South African National Defence Force (SANDF) troops in our midst, as well as very little detail on how the R50 billion relief fund will be applied, and most importantly, how oversight over the spending will work.

Cynicism is good

This cynicism is being criticised as being uncooperative and that South Africans should only be proud of how government has met the challenges of this pandemic thus far. It is true that in the context of the country’s reaction to the pandemic, this government has done much better than most across the globe. The larger context of governance realities in the country cannot be ignored though.

I was reminded of certain elements of the value of cynicism in an article by JR Macey. The article was written in the context of USA politics, but there certainly are touch points with South African politics. He basically argues that cynicism is good, and that people should be more cynical when it comes to politicians, officials, lobby groups, etc. As people, we are looking for leadership and sound decision-making. We expect good governance from the government. As South Africans, we have been consistently disappointed with our government in this regard for decades now. When it became clear that this virus was spreading across the globe like wildfire, we naturally held our collective breath. How will a government that can hardly keep the lights on or provide safe drinking water and whose public healthcare system has all but collapsed, deal with this virus when it finally arrives? All valid questions. We were appeased when the President announced a planned lockdown not long after the first cases were reported. We were impressed with the leadership from the Minister of Health and the experts he surrounded himself with. Rightly so. The President announced that the SANDF would assist the police in enforcing lockdown rules, but that they should perform their duty with empathy and in a spirit of service to the country. South Africans were supposed to feel secure.

Cynics raise questions

Yet, cynics raised questions about the fitness of the untrained SANDF to perform these duties and of the SAPS which, according to the latest crime statistics, all but lost ‘the war on crime’. Cynics raised questions about the ability of the public healthcare sector to use the time bought by the lockdown to ready itself for the inevitable rise in the numbers of infected South Africans who would need very specific healthcare, and to protect its healthcare workers. Cynics questioned the lack of data with which decisions are made and the reluctance to start planning for getting out of lockdown for the sake of the economy. These questions were met with accusations of being unpatriotic, tone-deaf, and choosing to save the economy over dying South Africans.

These questions became prevalent after the announcement of the phased approach on 23 April. Commentators, journalists, politicians across party lines, as well as ordinary citizens once again began to realise the validity of being cynical. There are many reports of brutality by the SANDF and SAPS, so there are understandably fears regarding the deployment of thousands more soldiers. The phased approach will rely heavily on local government machinery; so, how will the accountability for financial and performance management work when it continues to worsen in most municipalities.

It is good to be cynical; cynics are believed to be more vigilant, to question, and to expect answers. The problem is that cynics often do not get the answers and then stop participating. This is something we as South Africans cannot afford at a time when our freedoms are encroached upon. We need to be more vigilant than ever. Listen to the cynics. See if their questions are answered (not spun), because the expectations from government in the coming months are going to be immense and South Africans must make these expectations clear.

Opportunity

Provinces and local governments must carefully discern what these measures mean for each region and communicate this clearly. The latter has been sorely lacking up to now where most provinces and local governments are concerned. Oversight on all levels of government should not only be allowed but welcomed. There is time and opportunity to address all these concerns to prevent chaos and confusion. Public trust and participation are essential for this process to succeed. All the good governance principles such as transparency, accountability, responsiveness, etc., are required to ensure the success of the implementation of any government process, just as it has always been. This is an opportunity to use an enormous crisis to put these principles at the center for a change. One lives in hope...

Dr Ina Gouws is Senior Lecturer: Programme: Governance and Political Transformation in the Faculty of the Humanities.

News Archive

Statement on protest at the UFS

2005-03-04

Following a protest by student and non-student organisations today, the management of the University of the Free State (UFS) would like to place the following facts on record:

1. There is a well-documented process underway to further transform the UFS. At the official opening of the UFS on 4 February 2005 , the Rector and Vice-chancellor, Prof Frederick Fourie, announced that the UFS would draft a comprehensive Transformation Plan to guide the next phase of transformation at the institution.

The UFS appeals to student formations, staff associations, trade unions and other role-players to make a constructive input into this Transformation Plan.

The UFS management has been - and always will be - willing to engage with role-players and is prepared to do so even after today’s protest.

2. There is thus no regulation or policy prescription which separates students in hostels according to race.

The reality is that students exercise their freedom of choice as to which hostel they wish to be placed in. This was agreed upon by black and white students in 1997/8.

However, the unintended consequence and practice of this hostel placement policy has been that students themselves have tended to choose to stay in hostels which have over time become black hostels and white hostels.

This is a matter of concern for the management of the UFS as such a situation does not promote interaction across language, cultural and socio-economic groupings of students.

This matter is receiving attention and an intensive consultative process, which will include students, will be launched to review this policy.

The management is convinced that such interaction will enhance the learning experience of all students and sensitise them to the reality of a multicultural South Africa and a multicultural world.

3. No student organisation has been banned from operating at any of the three campuses of the UFS.

In the past few weeks, SASCO, the Young Communist League and the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) have held meetings on all three campuses, namely the Qwaqwa campus, the Vista campus and the main campus.

There are also regular interactions between top management and the leadership of SASCO and the ANCYL on campus.

In fact, the UFS upholds the right of students and staff to associate freely and to organise themselves as they see fit.

The UFS also upholds the rights of staff and students to engage in legal and peaceful protests.

The management however remains committed to discussing issues that affect staff and students in a constructive manner and appeals to student organisations in this case to engage with management.

4. The issues of registration, fees, debt and financial aid are continually monitored, and interventions to assist students are made regularly. To assist as far as possible those academically deserving students who face financial difficulties, the UFS management has put in place a structure called the Monitoring committee that includes management and student representatives.

The purpose of the Monitoring Committee is to review the cases of individual students to determine how best they can be assisted.

This applies to the Qwaqwa campus, the Vista campus and the main campus.

It is generally the case that students who perform academically will not have any difficulty in obtaining financial assistance. However, according to the requirements of National Student Financial Scheme, students who perform poorly will have difficulty in obtaining such assistance.

5. With regard to student governance, the process to institute an inclusive Central Student Representative Council (SRC), on which all three campuses will be equitably represented, was launched in July 2004, and a preliminary constitution has just been drafted. At the same time an inclusive process to review certain elements of the constitution of the main campus SRC was initiated at the end of 2004. This process, which includes all relevant student organisations and structures, is planned to produce an outcome within the next couple of months.

6. There is no policy at the UFS that is based on racism or that discriminates on the basis of the race of students and staff.

As part of the building of a new institutional culture within the broader transformation process, the UFS management is determined to eradicate all elements of racism that may occur on its campuses, and has already instituted inclusive forums on campus to discuss the issue of values and principles for a non-racial university.

Issued by: Mr Anton Fisher
Director: Strategic Communication
Cell: 072 207 8334
Tel: (051) 401-2749
4 March 2005

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept